stopped far short of the purpose and effort of overturning society, while in fact involving a "general strike," so far as possible, of the workers of a given industry, as well as a "sympathetic strike," joined in by numerous other workers whose labor is linked up with that of the transport workers. In these strikes, the purpose and effect were for immediate economic advantage. The unions engaged in them were really desirous of trade agreements with their employers which would ameliorate their condition as workers under the present system of society, and those agreements they in part obtained. There was therefore actually nothing of syndicalism, or the "general strike" of the syndicalists, in their objects.

Of the two antithetic schools of revolutionary thought now agitating the masses of Europe, syndicalism, having totally renounced parliamentarism, has proceeded to underrate the methods and ends of all law-making bodies. On the other hand, the politicians of the parliamentary labor movement, often neglecting or ignoring trade unionism, continually go far in endeavoring to fix the attention of the laboring classes upon partisan political action solely, notwithstanding its notable numerous failures and the present sphere of "reformism" to which in practice it has been narrowed, as compared with the avowed original end in view, social revolution.

The tendency among alleged revolutionary party parliamentary representatives in France, Germany, Italy, England, and Austria, has of recent years been to sink revolution and to take up with reform. Practical Socialism has plainly become in those countries a step-by-step progressiveness. Its main efforts have been given to promoting the education of the masses in the public schools, advocating the cause of universal suffrage, eliminating aristocratic privilege, joining with other parties in the separation of Church and State, and preaching theoretically the suppression of militarism while in fact quite uniformly acting in accordance with the dictates of patriotism.

With regard to such social reforms as these, the wage-workers of the United States, in common with the other citizens, have long stood in advance of their brethren of Europe. They have no concern with regard to certain immediate reforms necessary in most foreign countries. For instance, certainly they do not materially suffer from church interference or from compulsory military service.

It may be accurately said, broadly, that some of the political labor parties which started out in Europe during the last half century with proclamations of intention to accomplish the complete overturn of society show today, by their campaign printed matter, by the speeches of their members of Parliament, and by the declarations of their conventions, that much of their time is now taken up with immediate demands of a character which in America would mostly be but echoes of our own pre-revolutionary grievances. Our Government and our society have reached a stage further along in democracy's development. And, by the way, compared with the proclaimed approaching tremendous upheaval of society, announced in the manifestoes of the early apostles of revolutionary parliamentarism, the actual proposals of the radical parties before the parliaments of the various European nations generally indicate huge satisfaction with the capture of comparatively very small game.

Syndicalism in Europe marks reaction against "puttering parliamentary Socialism." What is heard of it as at work in the United States signifies simply the latest development of hot-head resentment against our economic conditions. Some of our excitable revolutionary dreamers have turned revolutionaries by act-on the spot. They have only jumped from pan to

fire.

Just when Socialists are Syndicalists, and Syndicalists Socialists, it is difficult to determine. In no country do the Socialists refuse to profit by any of the rash steps of the Syndicalists. Some of the Syndicalists proclaim themselves Socialists. The war-cries of the extremists among the political partisan Anarchists and Socialists are the same war-cries which are used by the economic Syndicalists.

Illustrations of the mingling of the Syndicalist spirit with the Socialist spirit was had at the eleventh National Congress of the United Socialist Parties of France held in Lyons, February 18-22, this year. The most important act of that congress related to a question which had for some time agitated the members of the party. Two Deputies had violently attacked from the tribune in the Chamber the methods of the "Confédération Générale du Travail," the syndicalistic, revolutionary, direct-action party. At the Congress these two Deputies were in turn attacked. They were present to defend themselves and to strike back at their assailants. Among the principal speakers on the question was M. Jaurès, who found the criticisms made by the two Deputies of the "C. G. T." excessive. "We must not blame too much the imprudences which can lead to victory. Apparent defeats have become brilliant victories because the Syndicates have reaped the fruit of hard lessons and are organized for a coming victory." At the conclusion of the debate a resolution was passed declaring that the two Deputies had performed their duty in calling the attention of the workers to the perils of the propaganda of anti-parliamentarism and of systematic violence, and also approving of the decisions on the subject of separate syndicate action and political action already taken at several previous Congresses. Upon this proceeding, a refusal to decide against either the Deputies or the syndicalists, a French periodical says: "Thus there were neither victors nor vanquished, nor approval nor blame. It is generally thus in these congresses, where the resolutions are monuments of fine diplomacy."

The mixing of Syndicalism with Socialism has gone far in the Scandinavian countries, according to the following news article printed in the International Socialist Review:

"Sets Seal on Revolutionary Syndicalism. - Christiania, Norway. In the last few weeks a most significant change has become evident in the labor union movement of Norway.

"In Sweden and Denmark the current of revolutionary syndicalism has for some time been quite strong, but in Norway this current was unknown up to last year. Now a particular type of syndicalism has developed here which, while not repudiating political action, nevertheless upholds the employment in the economic struggle of sabotage and the greater part of the other weapons of revolutionary syndicalism. This movement is being led by very intelligent agitators who have already obtained much influence. Their principal headquarters were until lately at Drontjem.

"Recently, after debates lasting three days, the resolution offered by the radicals was rejected by a vote of 181 to 164, and a compromise resolution was adopted. But last week the principles governing union activity were discussed for four days behind closed doors in this city, and, in spite of the opposition of the union leaders, the radicals resolution was adopted by 221 votes against 212. In addition to sabotage, the resolution recommends the non-observance of contracts made with employers.

"During the debates the editor-in-chief of Socialdemokraten (the official organ of the Social Democratic party of Norway), assailed violently certain doctrines of the new movement. Thereupon the assemblage, by a vote of 300 to 3 and in spite of the opposition of the chairman, protested energetically against the journal Socialdemokraten.

"As the convention was called by the political ogranization of the Social Democrats of Christiania, it is very probable that other sections will join in the protest. This is, surely, the first time that a Socialist political organization has thus set the seal of approval upon the methods of revolutionary syndicalism.

"The event is of special importance in view of the claims so often made, that revolutionary syndicalism, sabotage, and the other syndicalist methods, only appeal to workers of Latin origin, and can never find firm foothold in countries of Germanic or Anglo-Saxon population."

Much the same set of affairs appears to prevail in certain Socialist quarters in England, if we may believe a communication signed by Victor Fisher, a well-known Socialist leader, as printed in the London Mail. He agrees with Tom Mann "that labor politics will never benefit the toiler; there must be direct action." He adds:

"Everywhere one hears that mere parliamentarism is played out. Here is the extremest peril. The dam of constitutional legislation is being burst asunder. The old trade unions-craft unions are being everywhere undermined by a vehement advocacy of the new industrial unionism; unity on the basis of class, not craft.

"The common interests of the entire working class, irrespective of trade, are being preached ceaselessly and remorselessly. The duty of the entire working class to stand together is seizing the imagination of the workers, and hence the threat of the sympathetic strike. But behind all there rises no mere notion of a betterment of wages or conditions of labor, but the vision of a complete social transformation tersely expressed in the words of one of the revolutionary songs: 'We have been nothing, let's be all.'

"The catastrophic movement will go on. The coal crisis of today may pass away as the railway crisis of yesterday was temporarily solved. But the movement will gather force from its failures, determination in defeat, until its triumph merges into terrorism."

How the Syndicalist-Socialist movement in America strikes an intelligent non-radical observer will be seen in the following quotation from Current Literature:

"This new labor movement, which makes Congressman Berger look like a stand. patter and Samuel Gompers look like a reactionary, derives from France, where it is called Syndicalism. In Great Britain and America it is labeled Industrial Unionism. Its best known leaders in this country are Debs and Haywood-the latter one of the principals in the famous Moyer-Haywood trial. Its organization is known as the Industrial Workers of the World-the "I. W. W."-formed in the western States seven years ago, and now for the first time invading the East with its "direct-action" methods. The McNamara trial and the arrest a few weeks ago of fifty-four trade-union leaders as a result seems to have served as a cue to the Industrial Workers of the World for a frontal attack upon the Federation of Labor and the whole trade-union system. Says Eugene V. Debs, in the Appeal to Reason (Socialist):

""The fifty-four union arrests are so many impeachments of pure and simple unionism, of which Samuel Gompers has long been the acknowledged leader. The unions have lost their strikes, their character, their standing, and now their officials are facing prison sentences. This is the beginning of the final chapter of pure and simple unionism. Its unmistakable meaning is that the old unionism is dying and that a new and vital one is springing into life.

""The new unionism is absolutely bomb-proof against the detectives and the dynamiters of the corporations. It is the unionism that unites all the workers, teaches them to strike together, vote together, and make common cause together in the worldwide struggle to emancipate themselves from industrial slavery.'

"Some of the Socialist leaders like Hillquit and Robert Hunter deprecate this position of antagonism to the unions. Hunter, writing in the New York Socialist daily, The Call, declares that neither in France nor in England has the new movement arrayed itself against the trade unions, and he quotes Tom Mann-who is the worldleader of the Industrial Union, if it has one-and Keir Hardie in support of this statement. But the election of Haywood recently to the national executive committee of the Socialist party in this connection seems to show that that organization is beginning to succumb to the new leaders and the new methods, which lay stress upon industrial rather than political action."

The Survey's analysis of the Syndicatist-Socialists, is this:

"The membership of the Industrial Workers of the World is about equally divided between Anarchists and Socialists. Among the Anarchists are some whose Anarchism is based on theoretical ground; others who from their failure to become naturalized or from the migratory character of their work are deprived of the vote and therefore look to industrial rather than political action as the way to secure their ends-mass strikes and ultimately revolution, rather than the ballot and State Socialism. Haywood, on the other hand, is a member of the Socialist Party and at the last annual election won his way into the executive committee of the party against the vehement opposition of Morris Hillquit, John Spargo, and others of the old-line leaders who stand out against direct action and who maintain that in a democracy the ballot is the tool to work with.

"In 1908 the I. W. W. divided. The basis of cleavage between the two branches is that the one organization (the Detroit, Mich., I. W. W.) clings to the declaration of principles of the original body in 1905, which declared that workers must 'come together on the political as well as the industrial field, and take and hold that which they produce by their labor.' This stand the Detroit body still adheres to, the majority of its organizers being members of the Socialist Labor Party, of which Daniel DeLeon, one of the most consistent Marxists of the country, is chief spokesman. The Paterson strikers are members of this branch. The Chicago branch, however, in 1908 struck out the clause calling for political action, and has since become more anarchistic in temper. Ettor is of this group.

"The majority of the members of the Socialist Party-the major party organization of the Socialist movement in America-stand for industrial organization, as opposed to craft organization. Yet Socialists of the Berger type are members of labor unions and form an insurgent group in the A. F. of L., which has been endeavoring to swing it into the political propaganda of the Socialist Party. On the other hand Haywood stands in the Socialist Party as a leader of an insurgent faction which is urging that it should link economic action with political."

Classification of the Socialist leaders in this country in fact becomes as much of a puzzle as any classification of the various Socialisms. As to the latter, Bolton Hall has the following:

"The Socialist is 'most remarkable like you, but he is various-not one kind of man nor one kind of thinker; we have Christian Socialists, Marxian Socialists, State Socialists (or Socialists of the Chair, which is nearly the same), Fabian Socialists, or Opportunist Socialists, Communist Socialists and Anarchist Socialists, which differ more from one another than we differ from all Socialists. Besides these, and including many of them, are the Social Democrats, Socialist Laborites and, naturally, many other varieties of opinion and party. No platform has ever been formulated on which most Socialists would be likely to agree; even among strict party Socialists there is great diversity of opinion both as to the means and the aim of success."

Where Eugene V. Debs is at present to be classified one hardly knows, after reading his declarations in these paragraphs:

"The revolutionary movement of the working class will date from the year 1905, from the organization of the Industrial Workers of the World. The old form of unionism (trade unions) has long since fulfilled its mission and outlived its usefulness, and the hour has struck for a change.

"When the revolution comes they (the I. W. W's.) will be prepared to take possession and assume control of every industry."

The Socialist local mix-ups and contradictory party periodical write-ups are naturally adding to the general confusion. In Oakland, it is reported from a Socialist source, the I. W. W. is agitated for the recall of the Mayor, who had been thought sufficiently sympathetical with the Socialists. In this movement Oakland Socialists have joined the I. W. W. Attempts are made in the International Socialist Review by some of its leading writers to foretell how Socialism-or some kind of Socialism-is expected, some how, some time, to succeed. Robert Rives La Monte has this:

"The social organization of the future is not to be a glorified political State, but puly and simply an Industrial Democracy. Here Comrade Haywood was in full accord with Marx and Engels. Indeed, he showed himself a better Marxist than most of his critics. For while his critics would, almost to a man, admit that with the triumph of the proletariat the State will die out, nevertheless they continue in all their books, pamphlets, and speeches to reason as though the social organization of Tomorrow was to be simply an adopted form of the state of Today. Indeed, they often go so far as to talk of the State of Today 'growing into' the Co-operative Commonwealth. This utopian notion lurks beneath all the utterances of our self-styled 'Construction SocialNever shall you hear Bill Haywood prattle about reforming the present State into the Socialist Republic. He has felt the fangs of the political State and knows its essential nature too well to dream of transforming it into the Co-operative Commonwealth."

ists.'

In the same magazine J. H. Frazer, in describing "What We Want,"

declares:

"When we investigate municipal, State or government ownership we find that the workers are as thoroughly robbed, if not more so, than where private ownership prevails. In fact, it places the workers in a more precarious position, it being more difficult to strike, boycott or take any direct action against the State than it is against a private employer.

"The working class has gained nothing by government ownership.

"The government of the future will be an industrial government, over which those engaged in the industries will have full control. The road to industrial government lies through industrial organization."

After soaring in the empyrean with all these magazine writers, these Syndicalist parties, these diverse I. W. W. parties, these extreme Socialist leaders, and with the top-loftical speechifyings of Debs and Haywood, and after being bewildered by all these proposals to achieve the new State at a